EICAR (formerly known as the European Institute for Computer Anti-virus Research, though that title hasn't been used for a good while) is best known for its yearly conference and for the EICAR test file, which can be used as an installation check with most anti-virus programs to check that it's installed and active.

Sadly, I've been in this business long enough to remember when the EICAR test file was not detected by most AV programs: one or two actually had test files with similar functionality, but they were detected as test files only by their products.

Even more sadly, I've seen a hair-raising quantity of tests that use the EICAR file inappropriately. Not to mention, of course, simulators such as the Rosenthal utilities (I can hear the groans from here…) and Spycar. Sarah Gordon did a major paper on "Are good virus simulators still a bad idea?" back in the 1990s (Network Security, Volume 1996, Issue 9, September 1996, Pages 7-13) which drew on Luca Sambucci's Virus Simulator Test, published by ICARO (the Italian Computer Antivirus Research Organization) in 1994.

At the EICAR 2010 conference in Paris, an interesting student paper* was presented that used the EICAR file to make some points about the ways in which AV software works (or is presumed to work). Eddy Willems and I both mentioned it in articles for the June 2010 edition of Virus Bulletin. (Mine is available at http://www.eset.com/resources/white-papers/pwn2kill-whitepaper.pdf, by the way.)

"Test Files and Product Evaluation: the Case for and against Malware Simulation" is a paper presented at the recent AVAR conference by Eddy Willems, Lysa Myers and myself: we were all at the EICAR conference and figured that it was a good moment to combine our experience of testing, EICAR, AMTSO and the anti-malware industry to cover the developments that had taken place since Sarah's paper. Here's the abstract:

Any researcher with the most modest public profile is used to being asked for virus samples. Traditionally, we’ve advocated the use of alternatives, especially the EICAR test file, to anyone who doesn’t have access to malware through mainstream, trusted channels, as a way of simulating malware behaviour without the attendant risks of genuinely malicious behaviour. But is the EICAR file really suitable for the range of scenarios for which it is prescribed?

Of course, it’s always been difficult for aspirant testers outside the mainstream circle of trust to tap into the sample repositories and exchange mechanisms that benefit the major testers. However, as the influence of AMTSO on testing-related issues has increased, it has resulted in a move away from static testing to some form of dynamic testing, it’s become even more difficult for such testers to establish the connections in the industry that would make it easier for them to tap into the evolving sample and information exchanges that the big players in the industry are formulating, or the knowledge and experience that would enable them to explore more realistic alternative methodologies for trapping and validating samples.

Ironically, while dynamic testing offers, in the abstract, something closer to real-world testing, there’s been increased and unanticipated use of the EICAR file in testing contexts for which it was not designed – or appropriate, being a classic survivor of the strictest form of signature detection.

This paper draws on our combined experience of AV research, testing, and EICAR directorship to look at the genesis and development of the EICAR test file, from the rationalization of product-specific installation test files, through virus/malware simulation software, through its re-specification in 2003, to its recent rebirth as a test tool. Most importantly, it discusses, with examples, the separation in functionality between its use as an installation check and when it is (and, more often, isn’t) feasible to use it as a limited test tool, primarily as a check on detection functionality.

i always wondered how this signature testing works digitally …after going through your post its quite clear that its not completely successful

David Harley

Hello Mr Auctions. ;-) This isn't really signature testing. While EICAR, in particular, is sometimes used in detection tests, it doesn't really belong in that sort of test. Which is what the paper is about… The EICAR test file may have the word test in its common name, but it's really an installation check file. It tells you that your scanner is working. It doesn't tell you that it's working correctly though, and it doesn't tell you anything about detection except that it detects the EICAR test file. And if you start modifying the file inappropriately, it tells you nothing at all… There is a bit more than that to the paper, of course. :)

trinhluu

hi. my name luu trinh. i am live in viet nam . i’m a student. happy to be acquainted with you.

Randy Abrams

We’re delighted to make your acquaintance as well. we hope you enjoy NOD32 and ESET Smart Security. If you have any general security questions feel free to email askeset@eset.com. Please note that askeset@eset.com is never used for product support questions.

Michael Mather

Your paper is very interesting. Thank you.
Any AV program should come with one or more check files. These have nothing to do with viruses, worms, etc. They are just check files.
When you run the AV, you should have the option of whether to detect these check files. If they are detected, they should be reported like anything alse, but with a Severity of Zero (or whatever). Then you can check your setup and see how stuff is actually reported. You can also use it as a continuing check that the whole process has actually been run, if that is needed.
If the AV program wants to, it can also detect the check files inside zip files or wherever. That is up to the authors. They should not be detected if modified, for reasons given in the article.
The EICAR file is probably a suitable check file for much existing AV software. A list might be useful.
MS Security Essentials detects it, and says the alert level is "Severe". Now I don't know whether to trust you or MS!

David Harley

Nearly all mainstream anti-malware detects the EICAR file, though it’s not mandatory, and other types of security software tend not to acknowledge it. Alert level isn’t really relevant on a check file that has no malicious intent or effect. I don’t know why MSE would flag EICAR as ‘severe’, to be honest, but I suppose there’s room for disagreement.

Rhys Jones

I Dont Care,
I know this is not your doing,
Tthis "thing" installed itself on my server totally uninvited, obviously from some incompetent / pathetic web site. I don’t want it, I don’t need it, I trust my antivirus, it has served me well for the last two years. Now I can’t remove it. Honestly, I have better things to do with my time than trying to remove something a bunch of swinging dicks thought up and forced on me. This “thing” should be classed as a virus itself (Class it as a waste of time virus)

David Harley

Rhys, I’m not sure what “thing” you’re referring to: presumably it’s not the EICAR file?. If you’re an ESET customer, I’m sure customer support would be happy to help you if they can.